What rules were changed for London and when did they previously finish in a relegation position?

Bradford broke themselves chasing silverware, not trying to maintain a franchise. It just took a few years and several incompetent management teams for it to play out.

Franchising was the correct way to go for the sport. Unfortunately the RFL cocked it up. P&R failed in the past and will fail again regardless of the shiny new structure being used to disguise it as something new and innovative.

Does anyone know how long this experiment will go on before it is reviewed? I'm against it personally but it will certainly make things more interesting.

It occurs to me that it will make dual-registration deals controversial again.

It's definitely better than licensing IMO. We can't keep having situations were a in is allowed to collapse and then reform at the same level. It's a joke.

No idea. I imagine it will be tried out for at least two seasons to see if it's working or not. Mind you, knowing the RFL they'll just keep it going even if it isn't working. I have zero faith in them.

Leigh had one solitary season in SL in which they were awfully run and finished dead last after only two wins. That would happen to any team in any format.

When Fax were in the league, their crowds weren't far off ours. Crowds for the league were generally lower and they have a finished stadium now. I'd expect bigger crowds.

IIRC London has finished in the bottom 2 at least twice (but then again - we have once!)
They also have been allowed extra imports etc (tahts what I meant by the RL "Changing the rules"icon_wink.gif

What I am saying is that the franchising system is flawed and didn't work...

I happy to have relegation back, and although the 12x12 to 8x8x8 system seems a bit gimmicky, I think its at least better then what we had.

Not happy about the change to the challenge cup.. but can see why its been done... might mean we won't get knocked get fist round next year.. or get on TV a bit more

London have never finished in a relegation spot before this season, and the rules have never been changed to rescue them.

The additional imports rule was agreed for ALL expansion clubs - even we benefited from it after the merger since we inherited Gateshead's allowance. It was a temporary exemption that expired after a set number of years and was agreed by the SL club chairmen. London's exemption ran out years ago.

So, no. The RFL have never changed the rules to rescue London or to specifically help them any more than any other expansion club. Neither have they made any changes that were not agreed by the SL club chairmen.


The franchising system was not flawed - the implementation was. The RFL consistently ignored its own rules and overlooked warning signs when awarding franchises to favoured clubs. Had the rules been applied rigorously from the start then franchising would have worked.

I have no faith that the RFL will handle the new system any better than they did franchising. P&L didn't work the last time we tried it and it won't work this time either because we have the same incompetents in charge at both the RFL and many clubs.

So THIS franchising system was flawed? Correct? I also have little faith in the RFL... but what can we do as fans? except perhaps moan on forums!

It's no different to the farcical current play off system in SL. Remember our embarrassing performance at Huddersfield last year? The play offs in SL should never have moved beyond the top five teams.

I like the new structure and should strengthen the entire league, sure it's confusing but is innovative and different. Just need to make sure we get back in the eight.

One thing I need clarifying, in the Qualifiers, there are seven games and the 9th / 10th from SL and 1st / 2nd from Championship get 4 home games and 3 away? Is that correct? Trying to work out what the maximum number of home games they'll be if we finish in the top 8 or in positions 9,10,11,12 next year.

As far as I can work it out the top 4 in Super League when the league splits get 4 home games and the teams that finish 9th and 10th get the 4 homes games in the"Qualifiers"

No. If you look at the rules that were meant to be applied, the system should have worked. The RFL ignored their own rules on any number of occasions and made basic mistakes on others.

The system didn't fail because it was never actually applied. Instead we had some half-d implementation made up on the spur of the moment at Red Hall.

The system would only ever work if the people running he game were completely impartial and had the ability and resources to see things through. That would never happen, probably in any sport! For that reason alone, it would never work.

No one was willing to make the big calls and they would always be negativity regardless of whether it was a good call or not. For that reason, there needs to be a system that runs itself. No one to blame. No "flavour of the month" insinuations. That's how you get credibility with the supporters of this country.

There are a few things that I'd like to see change in the new system, but I think it's certainly a better step than the current mess.

The NRL says "Hi".

If the system had been in place last season we'd have been 9pts adrift of 4th place after 23 rounds.With only 3 home games in the "Super 8" we'd have had little or no chance of making the top4 with our season effectively over.
So much for Nigel Wood's claim that every minute of every match matters

There will still be meaningless games. If teams have little or no chance of making the top eight they will rest players in preparation for the 'Qualifiers'.

Imagine if we are 11th and taking on Wakefield in 12th in round 23. That'll draw the fans in, won't it.